So, I finally got to watch The Artist and that means, several months after the Oscars, I have finally seen every single Best Picture film.
First, let's review...
The Artist (Jean Dujardin, Berenice Bejo) - It's an interesting film that's well acted. It's especially good since there are no words in it so the music, body language, and facial expressions are really important to convey what is going on. I also enjoyed the story progression through movie history (silent films, "talkies," and then the progression to dancing in movies like Gene Kelly). The story was interesting seeing the two main characters and how one goes up, one goes down, and how they connect at the end. It's a little slow for me and you have to pay close attention to it or you won't know what's going on, but it was good. It's an interesting throwback to movies and is definitely a love letter to cinema. Grade: B
A Thousand Words (Eddie Murphy) - If there is one thing that Murphy does well, it's conveying the frustration of not being able to talk. It's like your vocal cords or something tense up from seeing the movie and how he just can't talk even though he REALLY wants to. It's pretty silly for about half the movie and then turns "soft" towards the end when he turns his life around. Murphy's character is a big editor, goes out to get a book deal, his home life has issues, the tree suddenly appears, and his assistant is stupid/annoying as all get out. The tree not only loses leaves for every word he utters, but whatever happens to the tree also affects him. So when he tries to cut it down, he ends up cutting himself. Gardeners water the tree, and he starts dripping in water. The main point of the movie is that words aren't always enough and that actions can mean far more than words. In other words, watch what you say (mean what you say, speak from your heart, and be careful what you say) and words (written or spoken - writing words counts towards leaves lost) are not always needed to convey what you feel (especially in showing love and gratitude). So I guess it's an overall good message, but it's not fantastic. Grade: C+
So best pictures...Do I think The Artist should have won Best Picture? Not really. I find many of the other films much more compelling, but I feel like The Artist is sort of a love letter to movies and is more along the lines of what The Academy tends to like to pick.
Here's what I ranked each movie:
The Artist - B
The Descendants - B+
Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close - B
Hugo - B
Midnight in Paris - B+
The Help - B+/A-
Moneyball - B/B+
War Horse - B+
The Tree of Life - B
They're all fairly close, but, by my rankings, I'd say The Help should have won Best Picture. To be honest, I'd have been happy with either The Help or War Horse; however, I honestly can't say I'm really bummed that The Artist won either. It really is a good movie and there were several clever things in it I liked (one would be how he suddenly was hearing "sounds" during a dream sequence and how the movie plays sometimes like a movie within a movie), but sometimes I wish The Academy was a little more mainstream. The Help and War Horse were genuinely excellent films in their own right too. Okay, all the Best Pictures were, but those 2 stood out to me over The Artist.
Recently saw the Taken 2 international trailer. Looks good! Haven't seen the newest Twilight: Breaking Dawn, Part 2 trailer (saw the old one), but I've read up on it. I'll have read just about the first 10, maybe 20 minutes of the movie and after that...I never read that part of the book! I know what happens, but I never finished Breaking Dawn. The Hobbit trailer still gives me goosebumps every time I see it! I do have to stop myself from saying, "Watson!" every time I see Martin Freeman, though. Spider-Man and the new Ice Age look interesting, but it's doubtful I'll see them in theater. The Les Miserable trailer is interesting too. I'm curious to see what the reviews are and a full length trailer too. The current one is of Anne Hathaway singing "I Dreamed a Dream" with some montage. It's an excellent cast (Hathaway as Fantine, Amanda Seyfried as Cosette, Hugh Jackman as Valjean, Sacha Baron Cohen as Thenardier, Helena Bonham Carter as Madame Thenardier, Russell Crowe as Javert, etc), but we'll see. (I can totally imagine Carter singing "Master of the House"!)
Friday, June 29, 2012
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
Brave & Abiquiu
Not much in the way of life updates, so...We'll get down to movies and polish!
Saw Brave yesterday. In ways of Pixar films, it's not their strongest film. I really enjoyed the Cars movies, but they are the least popular of Pixar films. When looking at the ratings, Brave ranks just above the Cars movies (from my recollection), but below all the rest. Is this a fair assessment? Perhaps. At any rate, it's not the strongest Pixar film. It's highly predictable, not exactly original, and it's a really "short" movie (1:40 hours - when did 1:40 hours become "short"?!). The characters are a little flat too. On the upside, I enjoyed the soundtrack, I thought the accent of Merida was charming (voiced by Kelly Macdonald), it had a nice mother-daughter story, and the animation was (as usual) top notch. It just doesn't have the same draw or charm as the others, though. The characters are less developed or something. It's particularly obvious when you compare Brave to movies like UP, Wall-E, Finding Nemo, etc. The movie is dedicated to Steve Jobs too. I enjoyed the short film in front of it and I also enjoyed seeing the Monster University trailer. Would I recommend seeing it in theaters? Probably not. If there's nothing else you want to see in theaters, I'd recommend seeing it. Grade: B
Hoping to nab The Artist this week to rent to see what all the fuss was about this past Oscars. Might get the Eddie Murphy one too about him talking too much and the tree has leaves and if the leaves all fall off, the tree dies, and Murphy's character does too? Something like that. I'm curious about it.
In the world of polish, I managed to almost go a week with the same mani! I haven't done that in a while, but when you get a polish that wears well and you like it, they tend to stick around longer. However, I did have some "issues" with this mani so I pretty much made up for all the days of not changing. Not to mention I did some quick swatching of 15 polishes. So...yeah. I guess I just delayed the inevitable smell of polish and polish remover on my dry hands! :)
Moving on...Here's Rescue Beauty Lounge's Abiquiu! This polish is part of the Georgia On My Mind Collection (Georgia O'Keefe that is) that I received last week from my pre-order. I love this polish. RBL is one of my all-time favorite brands. This polish is not super bright. It really is more of a light cactus green color (or a slightly darker green apple) with a silver shimmer in it. I really like it. The stamp is from BundleMonster (BM) plate 214 stamped in Konad special polish (SP). The stamp is what I was having issues with. It's been almost 2 months since I stamped and I am realllllly rusty on single stamps. I kept stamping it on super crooked, severely off-centered, etc. This attempt, at least, is just a little crooked. The others were a disaster!
The picture on the right is more accurate of the color than the left. The left is a little brighter, but showed the great silver shimmer. I tried stamping a full nail design and was going to do it on each nail, but the polish was too pretty to cover up! Not only that, but I trimmed my nails even shorter than my last mani, so I didn't really feel like all the design on shorter nails. These are the shortest nails I've had in at least half a year, if not longer. At least I got rid of the break, though!
Thursday, June 21, 2012
Holo Polish
I think this is the longest I've gone with switching my nails everyday. It's not uncommon for me to switch my mani the next day maybe once a week or every 2 weeks, but going 4 days in a row with a change IS unusual. Admittedly, this one and yesterday's were changed purely because I wanted to try out a new polish I received. Then again, the Lady Bug mani died today. I had a finger nail chip and it wasn't salvageable because the nail peeled. Would have maybe touched it up, but I got a new polish today I wanted to try. So, I'm rockin' simplistic nails today, which is a change after the last 5+ were chunky glitters.
This polish is by Picture Polish (Australian brand) and is called "Monroe" (as in Marilyn Monroe). It's a pretty opaque jelly-ish base with a shattered holo in it (holos are hard to photo even if I wasn't using my phone!). I trimmed my nails tonight. My right hand index is starting to split, so to help it not totally split off, I've trimmed all my nails till my nails grow out enough and I can cut it off. Have to rebuild the callouses on the tip of my fingers again...
For those that don't know, "holo" stands for "hologram" and flashes the color of the rainbow. You can have a "shattered holo," which means each particle seemingly flashes the rainbow independently and you can have a "linear holo," which means the particles seem to "work together" and show the rainbow spectrum all at once. As for finishes go, a "jelly" is typically rather sheer and has a "jelly" (as in the preservatives you can put on toast) texture/look to it when you apply it and when it dries.
Here are some examples of various "holos."
The polish on the left is Make Up Store Greta with a stamp over it (BM plate 203in Konad SP). This is a holographic polish so it's made to be specifically holographic. It's not the clearest picture, but it showed the best holo. You can see on the thumb how linear the holo is. The fingers are a little less holo-y, but the light angles weren't great for them at this angle.
The polish on the right is NerdLacquer Holy Grail (it has big pieces of glitter in it, hence the "bumpy look"). This is also a linear holo, but I'd say it's a weaker holo. This type of holo is more common because it's easier to add into polish and is also more forgiving and less picky. Holos like the MUS Greta usually needs a special application to it or doesn't look as good. The holo in NL Holy Grail is more forgiving and you can have some where the linear holo is super strong and others where it's weak. I'd say this is about medium-to-weak for a linear holo. Again, light angles help a lot too. This holo is created by adding the holo particles to a polish base rather than creating the polish out of the holo particles (like Greta).
The polish on the right is NerdLacquer Holy Grail (it has big pieces of glitter in it, hence the "bumpy look"). This is also a linear holo, but I'd say it's a weaker holo. This type of holo is more common because it's easier to add into polish and is also more forgiving and less picky. Holos like the MUS Greta usually needs a special application to it or doesn't look as good. The holo in NL Holy Grail is more forgiving and you can have some where the linear holo is super strong and others where it's weak. I'd say this is about medium-to-weak for a linear holo. Again, light angles help a lot too. This holo is created by adding the holo particles to a polish base rather than creating the polish out of the holo particles (like Greta).
Wednesday, June 20, 2012
Lady Bug Nails
Well, here goes the first attempt at posting nail photos...I'm on a one-day rotation right now (3 days, 3 manicures). Wouldn't have changed from last night, but I got this new glitter nail polish and I really wanted to try it. I'm into indie (short for independent) brands right now (i.e., they're not "mainstream" and usually home/hand mixed and produced) and, in particular, unusual glitters. I've got several glitters with hearts in them (black, red, or white); several with flowers, some with stars, some with moons, and I even have one with butterflies in it. However, recently round glitters have been popping up and I bought two a few weeks ago (they just arrived) with round glitters.
This one is called "Lady Bug" and it's by Darling Diva Polish. It's a red sheer base with black hexagons (small and medium size) and black circles. I really like the circles, even if they are a little big for my nail bed (meaning, they stick up on the sides just a little). Of course, it being called Lady Bug, I had to do nail art with a lady bug! Because the polish is sheer, it's painted over Rescue Beauty Lounge Chinoise, which is a lovely red creme to make it opaque (and not be able to see my nail line (also referred to as visible nail line (VNL)).
Base: Rescue Beauty Lounge Chinoise (2 coats)
Darling Diva Polish Lady Bug over RBL Chinoise and then my accent lady bug nail art. :)
You can click the photos to make them bigger. Lady Bug has such a sheer base, it's practically just a tinted base so it barely affects the color of Chinoise. The glitter took a little bit of fishing/placing because there wasn't a whole lot and the circles sunk really quickly, but it wasn't too bad. I've dealt with far worse before.
Nail photos and movies?
I'm contemplating posting photos of my nail stuff here. I'm by no means turning into a nail blogger (that sounds like work!), but I might just post the stuff I do. I post pictures on Facebook already, but since I already do it there, how much more work would it be to post here too? I don't know. I change my nails so regularly (every 2-3 days, if I can manage, but sometimes as long as 4-5 days or as short as, well, every day)...So...We'll see! It will require me to download my photos more. Oh the work! ;)
At any rate, quick update on work. My normal schedule is back! After working 7 hours of overtime in 3 weeks, being short-staffed, having to work 2 hours on a day off (admittedly, it was just for fire extinguisher training so it wasn't really like work and I did get to leave 2 hours early from another shift, but I did have to be up and present at the training), and then working 6-days in a row, I am ready to be back on my normal work schedule! I'm a little worried, though, because it looks like the work-cold might be making its rounds again...I'm waiting for the time when we're all back on our regular schedules and no one is ill! This week is ill person and one person is gone for 2 days to work at another store. Tired of it! At least my schedule looks to be okay.
Okay, on to movies! Really not a great group of movies, but Brave comes out this Friday!!
Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance (Nicolas Cage) - Okay, okay. I shouldn't have been surprised that it was horrible, but...I mean. Come on! The first one was BAD. You'd think if they're going to put the effort into a 2nd one (with a, mostly, totally unrelated plot to the first one) that they'd make it a least a LITTLE better than the first one. Nope. It's bad, if not WORSE than the first one. Probably worse because it isn't even remotely better than the first one and that's just, well, bad. How many times can I say "bad" in this short paragraph? At any rate, skip it. The only even slightly "good" part is that the CG is decent. So much money in a movie that's horrible! Grade: F (I don't think I've ever given a F before!)
The Grey (Liam Neesom) - I knew the movie was centered around survival in the snow with a pack of wolves trying to eat them. With that said, Chris and I started the odds on each person as soon as they crashed and then guessed how many people (if any) were going to survive to the end of the movie. Most times you feel a little optimistic for some people through the movie, but you quickly learn not to get attached to ANYONE in this one. I'm not even sure what the whole point was for? Not to say every movie needs a point, but I just feel like this one had a point somewhere that I missed. Perhaps something about nature? Or surviving? Or past misdeeds? Or resigning yourself to the cards life hands you? I don't know. At any rate, it ends rather depressingly. The tension/suspense in the movie is rather high (they do that well), but I could have lived without seeing it. Grade: D
Red Tails (Terrence Howard, Cuba Gooding Jr., Nate Parker, etc) - I knew Red Tails hadn't received glowing reviews so I wasn't expecting much from it, but it certainly still missed even my expectations. There is something "off" about the film. It's supposed to be a dramatized history drama (whatever you want to call it), but even then I think I expected something more along the lines of a cross between Saving Private Ryan and Secretariat/Remember the Titans/etc. Unfortunately, the characters fell flat. Perhaps there were too many of them, but they weren't particularly likeable and it there were some you knew about more than others and it was just awkward with that many people to focus on. It also had a sense of dramatization to it like you were watching an action film. I liked the combat scenes (CG was good) and the premise is a good one, but it wasn't executed well. I think if the pilots were more likeable it'd have gone better. Grade: C
John Carter (Taylor Kitsch, Lynn Collins) - Not bad. It fell somewhere within my expectations. It's sort of a cross between Pirates of the Caribbean, Star Wars Episode I, and Somewhere in Time (with a happy ending). If you can imagine those 3 things together, that's basically John Carter for you. Except, instead of time travel, it's more like planet jumping (Earth to Mars). It starts off kind of different because it starts in the "future" and then backtracks to the "past" to tell the story of John Carter, and ends back in the "future" (or present). So it had an element of "mystery" to figure out at the very end, but wasn't totally surprising either. It's a lot of fighting and traveling. It's not a bad film, but it's certainly not fantastic either. Grade: B-/C+
This Means War (Reese Witherspoon, Chris Pine, and Tom Hardy) - It's not too bad. I can't say it's fantastic either, but it walks a very fine line between aiming itself at males and females. It's a romantic comedy, which you instantly think would appeal more to the women, but the main characters are male (most rom-coms focus around females). In that sense, both the guys and the girl have their "relationship" issues where both sides can understand (the guys' competition and the girl's dilemma with picking and dealing with her ex). It's pretty silly and the actual "mission" is kind of thrown into the middle of it to help create an action sense to it and also some "excitement," but it's definitely the back story. I will say, this movie made me think "bros before hoes," which is crude, but that mantra would have made the two guys pitting themselves against each other to win the girl moot. They're also best friends, not only CIA partners. It's cute and they all have a good ending, but it is rather silly (sort of the same feeling as Mr. & Mrs. Smith). I do enjoy Witherspoon, Hardy, and Pine, though. Compared to some other rom-com actresses, Witherspoon tends to have the better rom-coms (unlike Hudson, who I really can't stand...). Grade: B-/C+
Rewatched Sherlock Homes: Game of Shadows too. I like the film. I still think the horse scene is the funniest scene in the movie and still makes me laugh when I see/think of it. Has one of the best lines too: "They're dangerous at both ends and crafty in the middle. Why would I want anything with a mind of its own bobbing about between my legs?" So funny.
I just figured out that I've been shooting for 80 films this year, and I, actually, was supposed to be shooting for 70. At the rate I'm going, it'll definitely be easy to hit 70 (I suspect I'll hit 60 by the end of July), so I'm officially going for 80. It's a little harder to obtain, but shouldn't be unfeasible either. We'll see if I can do it! I also realized I totally missed Beginners on DVD. How did I do that?! So I'm going to have to find it somewhere to rent now.
At any rate, quick update on work. My normal schedule is back! After working 7 hours of overtime in 3 weeks, being short-staffed, having to work 2 hours on a day off (admittedly, it was just for fire extinguisher training so it wasn't really like work and I did get to leave 2 hours early from another shift, but I did have to be up and present at the training), and then working 6-days in a row, I am ready to be back on my normal work schedule! I'm a little worried, though, because it looks like the work-cold might be making its rounds again...I'm waiting for the time when we're all back on our regular schedules and no one is ill! This week is ill person and one person is gone for 2 days to work at another store. Tired of it! At least my schedule looks to be okay.
Okay, on to movies! Really not a great group of movies, but Brave comes out this Friday!!
Ghost Rider: Spirit of Vengeance (Nicolas Cage) - Okay, okay. I shouldn't have been surprised that it was horrible, but...I mean. Come on! The first one was BAD. You'd think if they're going to put the effort into a 2nd one (with a, mostly, totally unrelated plot to the first one) that they'd make it a least a LITTLE better than the first one. Nope. It's bad, if not WORSE than the first one. Probably worse because it isn't even remotely better than the first one and that's just, well, bad. How many times can I say "bad" in this short paragraph? At any rate, skip it. The only even slightly "good" part is that the CG is decent. So much money in a movie that's horrible! Grade: F (I don't think I've ever given a F before!)
The Grey (Liam Neesom) - I knew the movie was centered around survival in the snow with a pack of wolves trying to eat them. With that said, Chris and I started the odds on each person as soon as they crashed and then guessed how many people (if any) were going to survive to the end of the movie. Most times you feel a little optimistic for some people through the movie, but you quickly learn not to get attached to ANYONE in this one. I'm not even sure what the whole point was for? Not to say every movie needs a point, but I just feel like this one had a point somewhere that I missed. Perhaps something about nature? Or surviving? Or past misdeeds? Or resigning yourself to the cards life hands you? I don't know. At any rate, it ends rather depressingly. The tension/suspense in the movie is rather high (they do that well), but I could have lived without seeing it. Grade: D
Red Tails (Terrence Howard, Cuba Gooding Jr., Nate Parker, etc) - I knew Red Tails hadn't received glowing reviews so I wasn't expecting much from it, but it certainly still missed even my expectations. There is something "off" about the film. It's supposed to be a dramatized history drama (whatever you want to call it), but even then I think I expected something more along the lines of a cross between Saving Private Ryan and Secretariat/Remember the Titans/etc. Unfortunately, the characters fell flat. Perhaps there were too many of them, but they weren't particularly likeable and it there were some you knew about more than others and it was just awkward with that many people to focus on. It also had a sense of dramatization to it like you were watching an action film. I liked the combat scenes (CG was good) and the premise is a good one, but it wasn't executed well. I think if the pilots were more likeable it'd have gone better. Grade: C
John Carter (Taylor Kitsch, Lynn Collins) - Not bad. It fell somewhere within my expectations. It's sort of a cross between Pirates of the Caribbean, Star Wars Episode I, and Somewhere in Time (with a happy ending). If you can imagine those 3 things together, that's basically John Carter for you. Except, instead of time travel, it's more like planet jumping (Earth to Mars). It starts off kind of different because it starts in the "future" and then backtracks to the "past" to tell the story of John Carter, and ends back in the "future" (or present). So it had an element of "mystery" to figure out at the very end, but wasn't totally surprising either. It's a lot of fighting and traveling. It's not a bad film, but it's certainly not fantastic either. Grade: B-/C+
This Means War (Reese Witherspoon, Chris Pine, and Tom Hardy) - It's not too bad. I can't say it's fantastic either, but it walks a very fine line between aiming itself at males and females. It's a romantic comedy, which you instantly think would appeal more to the women, but the main characters are male (most rom-coms focus around females). In that sense, both the guys and the girl have their "relationship" issues where both sides can understand (the guys' competition and the girl's dilemma with picking and dealing with her ex). It's pretty silly and the actual "mission" is kind of thrown into the middle of it to help create an action sense to it and also some "excitement," but it's definitely the back story. I will say, this movie made me think "bros before hoes," which is crude, but that mantra would have made the two guys pitting themselves against each other to win the girl moot. They're also best friends, not only CIA partners. It's cute and they all have a good ending, but it is rather silly (sort of the same feeling as Mr. & Mrs. Smith). I do enjoy Witherspoon, Hardy, and Pine, though. Compared to some other rom-com actresses, Witherspoon tends to have the better rom-coms (unlike Hudson, who I really can't stand...). Grade: B-/C+
Rewatched Sherlock Homes: Game of Shadows too. I like the film. I still think the horse scene is the funniest scene in the movie and still makes me laugh when I see/think of it. Has one of the best lines too: "They're dangerous at both ends and crafty in the middle. Why would I want anything with a mind of its own bobbing about between my legs?" So funny.
I just figured out that I've been shooting for 80 films this year, and I, actually, was supposed to be shooting for 70. At the rate I'm going, it'll definitely be easy to hit 70 (I suspect I'll hit 60 by the end of July), so I'm officially going for 80. It's a little harder to obtain, but shouldn't be unfeasible either. We'll see if I can do it! I also realized I totally missed Beginners on DVD. How did I do that?! So I'm going to have to find it somewhere to rent now.
Thursday, June 14, 2012
Kentucky Derby Point System Rant
We interrupt the normal hum-drum of movie reviews to bring you this lovely rant about the new point system to be eligible to start in the Kentucky Derby.
Today, CDI (Churchill Downs Incorporated) announced the "Road to the Kentucky Derby" to better connect with fans and to help them understand how a horse becomes eligible to start in the Kentucky Derby. You can read the Blood-Horse's article on it here: http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/70551/churchill-revamps-derby-qualifying-system
My big thing: How hard is it to understand that the top 20 horses with the most earned money in races are the ones that become eligible to run in the race? Okay, there's the whole "graded system" of races, but you don't really need to know that since they (racing stewards) keep track of how much money is earned in graded races so all you have to look at (list wise) is how much money the horses have made. Sure, a lot of solo sports do use a point system (e.g., NASCAR) to determine the winner of a season and such, but, honestly, this is determining who is eligible to START in a race. I think it's an interesting system to add the points and I am glad they are trying to come up with new ways to generate more fans and to change things around, but I don't think this is it.
First off, I think the point system is incredibly limiting for the trainers because the trainers now have to make sure they enter their horses in the races with points. Some small-time trainers sometimes wait to enter their horses in the bigger races to make sure the horse can do well in it since entering a horse in the Derby isn't cheap (it costs over $50,000 to start in the Kentucky Derby, not including the nomination fee (between $600-$6,000), it costs $25,000 to enter and $25,000 to start). So instead of going about it their own way, they now have to plot a path through the number of races CDI is going to count instead of allowing well over a hundred different options.
Not only that, the new system practically makes it impossible for a filly (female horse) to enter the Derby. Most fillies who have run in the Derby have run in restricted races (i.e., against other females) and then run in the Derby. The new system makes it so fillies HAVE to run in open company (i.e., against other males) BEFORE the Derby to even be eligible on the list. I simply don't see trainers doing that to their fillies. Trainers almost from the start now have to think "Derby" with a filly rather than running her against her fellow 3yos to decide if she's good enough or not. Admittedly, in other countries, females running against males isn't an unusual thing as it is in the US, but we have our system and I don't see more females running against males to start in the Derby.
Another thing, I feel like the CDI was kind of "lame" with their list of chosen races because they didn't include some races that have produced Derby winners, but added races that haven't produced a winner. Really? Who is it for these "people" to determine where the best runners are going to come from? Mine That Bird (2009 winner) wouldn't even have made it onto the list if they had the point system back then. Not only that, they made some races more valuable than others. Again, who is to say that one race is more valuable than another?
And my last quibble (I suppose it just makes me sound lazy) is that I'm going to have to keep a spreadsheet now of the races, their point value, which horses win it, and how many points the horses earn. Course, someone else will keep that list for me, but it's more work!
I think the REAL reason they're doing this is they can market better. As they do with all other sports like the playoff season, they have a marketing strategy to point people to the lead-up to the Derby underneath one marketing banner. Sure, it simplifies things better that way, but since ESPN and NBC don't even air these races, what's the point? If they simply aired those races, I don't think you'd even need the point system to drum up interest. I think the point system is interesting because almost everyone can understand a point system and people can now tally points for their horses and keep track of them (I guess), but I'd rather they just made a blanket point system (30 for 1st, 15 for 2nd, and 5 for 3rd - as an example). Not only that, but money earnings can be easily done too if you want your horse to win...They tell you how much a race is earned for each race. Okay, I guess counting to several hundred thousand can be a pain.
To say the least, I'm not exactly thrilled by the new system. I think I'd be more thrilled for them to change the age restriction on the race (how about 4 instead of 3 year olds?) or even change the field number (how about 14 horses (like the fillies compete against) instead of 20?) than the point system. I suppose, in the end, the next year will be an interesting time to see how this point system works. It'd be great if it garners more fans, but I highly doubt it.
Next post will return to your regular movie news. I watched two movies this week. They were movie rentals as theirs nothing in theater I want to watch right now (I think Madagascar and Prometheus will be renters) until after the 22nd when Brave comes out! Chris is not looking forward to it, but I certainly am!
Today, CDI (Churchill Downs Incorporated) announced the "Road to the Kentucky Derby" to better connect with fans and to help them understand how a horse becomes eligible to start in the Kentucky Derby. You can read the Blood-Horse's article on it here: http://www.bloodhorse.com/horse-racing/articles/70551/churchill-revamps-derby-qualifying-system
My big thing: How hard is it to understand that the top 20 horses with the most earned money in races are the ones that become eligible to run in the race? Okay, there's the whole "graded system" of races, but you don't really need to know that since they (racing stewards) keep track of how much money is earned in graded races so all you have to look at (list wise) is how much money the horses have made. Sure, a lot of solo sports do use a point system (e.g., NASCAR) to determine the winner of a season and such, but, honestly, this is determining who is eligible to START in a race. I think it's an interesting system to add the points and I am glad they are trying to come up with new ways to generate more fans and to change things around, but I don't think this is it.
First off, I think the point system is incredibly limiting for the trainers because the trainers now have to make sure they enter their horses in the races with points. Some small-time trainers sometimes wait to enter their horses in the bigger races to make sure the horse can do well in it since entering a horse in the Derby isn't cheap (it costs over $50,000 to start in the Kentucky Derby, not including the nomination fee (between $600-$6,000), it costs $25,000 to enter and $25,000 to start). So instead of going about it their own way, they now have to plot a path through the number of races CDI is going to count instead of allowing well over a hundred different options.
Not only that, the new system practically makes it impossible for a filly (female horse) to enter the Derby. Most fillies who have run in the Derby have run in restricted races (i.e., against other females) and then run in the Derby. The new system makes it so fillies HAVE to run in open company (i.e., against other males) BEFORE the Derby to even be eligible on the list. I simply don't see trainers doing that to their fillies. Trainers almost from the start now have to think "Derby" with a filly rather than running her against her fellow 3yos to decide if she's good enough or not. Admittedly, in other countries, females running against males isn't an unusual thing as it is in the US, but we have our system and I don't see more females running against males to start in the Derby.
Another thing, I feel like the CDI was kind of "lame" with their list of chosen races because they didn't include some races that have produced Derby winners, but added races that haven't produced a winner. Really? Who is it for these "people" to determine where the best runners are going to come from? Mine That Bird (2009 winner) wouldn't even have made it onto the list if they had the point system back then. Not only that, they made some races more valuable than others. Again, who is to say that one race is more valuable than another?
And my last quibble (I suppose it just makes me sound lazy) is that I'm going to have to keep a spreadsheet now of the races, their point value, which horses win it, and how many points the horses earn. Course, someone else will keep that list for me, but it's more work!
I think the REAL reason they're doing this is they can market better. As they do with all other sports like the playoff season, they have a marketing strategy to point people to the lead-up to the Derby underneath one marketing banner. Sure, it simplifies things better that way, but since ESPN and NBC don't even air these races, what's the point? If they simply aired those races, I don't think you'd even need the point system to drum up interest. I think the point system is interesting because almost everyone can understand a point system and people can now tally points for their horses and keep track of them (I guess), but I'd rather they just made a blanket point system (30 for 1st, 15 for 2nd, and 5 for 3rd - as an example). Not only that, but money earnings can be easily done too if you want your horse to win...They tell you how much a race is earned for each race. Okay, I guess counting to several hundred thousand can be a pain.
To say the least, I'm not exactly thrilled by the new system. I think I'd be more thrilled for them to change the age restriction on the race (how about 4 instead of 3 year olds?) or even change the field number (how about 14 horses (like the fillies compete against) instead of 20?) than the point system. I suppose, in the end, the next year will be an interesting time to see how this point system works. It'd be great if it garners more fans, but I highly doubt it.
Next post will return to your regular movie news. I watched two movies this week. They were movie rentals as theirs nothing in theater I want to watch right now (I think Madagascar and Prometheus will be renters) until after the 22nd when Brave comes out! Chris is not looking forward to it, but I certainly am!
Tuesday, June 5, 2012
Movies: Snow White & the Huntsman & New Year's Eve
Trying to be better about reviewing more regularly or perhaps my 12 hours of sleep last night have motivated me and given me energy!
This last week at work has been absolutely draining. I worked two 11.5 hours work shifts (we get a half hour lunch) in a row in the middle of my work week on Friday and Saturday, which just happen to be our 2 busiest days. Not to mention, we were seriously understaffed on Saturday since one employee called out and our manager wasn't available. One of the other employees also did a 11.5 hour shift on Sat. Crazy, I tell you! We're doing surveys too, which adds *that* much more stress onto the day. I've been joking, though, saying I run a tight ship because we've managed to never get too behind on getting stuff out while I've been there. Sure, the store could look prettier, but we'll worry about that after our staff all come back! We have all been working really hard, though. I did get to leave early on Monday because I've got fire extinguisher training on Wed so, as to not work overtime this week, I got to leave early! I don't think training is going to take 2 hours, but I guess I'll worry about that tomorrow if it does take less than 2 hours and talk it over with my manager. Be interesting to do the training, though. I thought our acronym "PASS" (Pull, Aim, Squeeze, Sweep) was supposed to make us capable? I get to work 4-days in a row this week, which is great because Saturday is an auction Sat (i.e., ALWAYS crazy Sats!) and I'm doing the auction 100% alone. The other 2 people who help (1 closes out the auction, 1 helps set it up the new one, and I help pack-up and ring-up the closed out and write the paperwork for the new one) are gone. However, I get 4-days in a row, but I then get to work 6-days in a row. Woohoo! Work is treating me well while our manager is gone. I don't get overtime for the 6th day either because in the actual week (Sun-Sat) I'm only working 5 days. My 6th day rolls into the next week (my "normal" days off are Tues/Wed, but I get Mon/Tues off one week).
Anyway, with that...Movies! Because I got off early on Monday, Chris and I went and saw Snow White & the Huntsman and I rented New Year's Eve last week.
Snow White & the Huntsman (Kristen Stewart, Chris Hemsworth, Charlize Theron) - I liked it, but Chris found it boring. It could have been better and I still think Stewart is a bit of a flat actress, but I thought Theron and Hemsworth were good. Theron really did a good job playing the unstable sorceress queen. Her brother was equally creepy. I liked Hemsworth and thought he was a good Huntsman, but the age situation between Stewart and Hemsworth really bothered me! I'm not sure why, but it did. I was all for William over the Huntsman and I don't think you should be thinking that during the movie. With that said, Chris said to me, "In the medieval time, no one would have thought anything weird about that." True that. The writing could have been better too. There were some really bad lines, especially at the end ("You look fetching in mail" (ahahaha) or after a very poignant pause, "You can't have my heart" (what?!?!)). Chris and I were making fun of them after we left and how some of them could have been changed or left out completely. I will say, I liked the beginning and middle of the movie far better than the end. Something "wrong" happens towards the end and it just doesn't work. I'm not sure if it's because it's sped up (you spend 3/4 of the movie on this "journey" and the last quarter is the battle/finale/everything). They could have cut out some of the journey and made the end flow a little better and I think I'd have enjoyed it better. It is far darker than Mirror, Mirror, but, in that way, this film is more of an adventure story rather than a comedy/family film. It's more to my taste and the soundtrack is really good. I'm not sure if it's a good thing when you start noticing how good the soundtrack is in comparison to the movie, but I thought Newton Howard did a good job. Some pieces did remind me of various movies (Narnia and Pirates of the Caribbean), but I listen to so many soundtracks that it's hard for me NOT to hear some notes in other movies. There were some moments in the movie where I went, "NARNIA!" and I was telling Chris during a chase scene I, kid you not, was trying to count the "shadow soldiers" chasing them to see if there were 9 of them (i.e., Ringwraiths from LotR). At any rate, I liked it, but it could have been better with just a few changes in the writing of the script. I wouldn't mind seeing it again on DVD, but I wouldn't readily recommend it. Grade: B/B-
New Year's Eve (Sarah Jessica Parker, Michelle Pfeiffer, Zac Effron, Ashton Kutcher, etc) - I like these sappy movie ensemble casts where there are a lot of various well-known actors/actresses in them. Chris just went, "Another one?!" I think I've pretty much seen most, if not all, of them (Valentine's Day, Love Actually, etc) and I enjoy them as fluff films. I don't think this one was as good as the others, but it was okay. I think my favorite pairing was Pfeiffer and Effron. I also like in these films how everyone is connected to each other in some way. Heigl was in this one (totally forgot) and Chris made a comment how I've been watching a lot of Heigl lately. I think I rewatched something of hers the other day and after seeing One for the Money, I apparently have been on a Heigl kick lately. Her pairing is with Bon Jovi and it was okay. In general, this film is as you would expect it to be with all manners of relationships (neighbors, father-daughter, mother-daughter, ex's, etc). Wouldn't really recommend this, unless you were inclined to watch it. Grade: B-
This last week at work has been absolutely draining. I worked two 11.5 hours work shifts (we get a half hour lunch) in a row in the middle of my work week on Friday and Saturday, which just happen to be our 2 busiest days. Not to mention, we were seriously understaffed on Saturday since one employee called out and our manager wasn't available. One of the other employees also did a 11.5 hour shift on Sat. Crazy, I tell you! We're doing surveys too, which adds *that* much more stress onto the day. I've been joking, though, saying I run a tight ship because we've managed to never get too behind on getting stuff out while I've been there. Sure, the store could look prettier, but we'll worry about that after our staff all come back! We have all been working really hard, though. I did get to leave early on Monday because I've got fire extinguisher training on Wed so, as to not work overtime this week, I got to leave early! I don't think training is going to take 2 hours, but I guess I'll worry about that tomorrow if it does take less than 2 hours and talk it over with my manager. Be interesting to do the training, though. I thought our acronym "PASS" (Pull, Aim, Squeeze, Sweep) was supposed to make us capable? I get to work 4-days in a row this week, which is great because Saturday is an auction Sat (i.e., ALWAYS crazy Sats!) and I'm doing the auction 100% alone. The other 2 people who help (1 closes out the auction, 1 helps set it up the new one, and I help pack-up and ring-up the closed out and write the paperwork for the new one) are gone. However, I get 4-days in a row, but I then get to work 6-days in a row. Woohoo! Work is treating me well while our manager is gone. I don't get overtime for the 6th day either because in the actual week (Sun-Sat) I'm only working 5 days. My 6th day rolls into the next week (my "normal" days off are Tues/Wed, but I get Mon/Tues off one week).
Anyway, with that...Movies! Because I got off early on Monday, Chris and I went and saw Snow White & the Huntsman and I rented New Year's Eve last week.
Snow White & the Huntsman (Kristen Stewart, Chris Hemsworth, Charlize Theron) - I liked it, but Chris found it boring. It could have been better and I still think Stewart is a bit of a flat actress, but I thought Theron and Hemsworth were good. Theron really did a good job playing the unstable sorceress queen. Her brother was equally creepy. I liked Hemsworth and thought he was a good Huntsman, but the age situation between Stewart and Hemsworth really bothered me! I'm not sure why, but it did. I was all for William over the Huntsman and I don't think you should be thinking that during the movie. With that said, Chris said to me, "In the medieval time, no one would have thought anything weird about that." True that. The writing could have been better too. There were some really bad lines, especially at the end ("You look fetching in mail" (ahahaha) or after a very poignant pause, "You can't have my heart" (what?!?!)). Chris and I were making fun of them after we left and how some of them could have been changed or left out completely. I will say, I liked the beginning and middle of the movie far better than the end. Something "wrong" happens towards the end and it just doesn't work. I'm not sure if it's because it's sped up (you spend 3/4 of the movie on this "journey" and the last quarter is the battle/finale/everything). They could have cut out some of the journey and made the end flow a little better and I think I'd have enjoyed it better. It is far darker than Mirror, Mirror, but, in that way, this film is more of an adventure story rather than a comedy/family film. It's more to my taste and the soundtrack is really good. I'm not sure if it's a good thing when you start noticing how good the soundtrack is in comparison to the movie, but I thought Newton Howard did a good job. Some pieces did remind me of various movies (Narnia and Pirates of the Caribbean), but I listen to so many soundtracks that it's hard for me NOT to hear some notes in other movies. There were some moments in the movie where I went, "NARNIA!" and I was telling Chris during a chase scene I, kid you not, was trying to count the "shadow soldiers" chasing them to see if there were 9 of them (i.e., Ringwraiths from LotR). At any rate, I liked it, but it could have been better with just a few changes in the writing of the script. I wouldn't mind seeing it again on DVD, but I wouldn't readily recommend it. Grade: B/B-
New Year's Eve (Sarah Jessica Parker, Michelle Pfeiffer, Zac Effron, Ashton Kutcher, etc) - I like these sappy movie ensemble casts where there are a lot of various well-known actors/actresses in them. Chris just went, "Another one?!" I think I've pretty much seen most, if not all, of them (Valentine's Day, Love Actually, etc) and I enjoy them as fluff films. I don't think this one was as good as the others, but it was okay. I think my favorite pairing was Pfeiffer and Effron. I also like in these films how everyone is connected to each other in some way. Heigl was in this one (totally forgot) and Chris made a comment how I've been watching a lot of Heigl lately. I think I rewatched something of hers the other day and after seeing One for the Money, I apparently have been on a Heigl kick lately. Her pairing is with Bon Jovi and it was okay. In general, this film is as you would expect it to be with all manners of relationships (neighbors, father-daughter, mother-daughter, ex's, etc). Wouldn't really recommend this, unless you were inclined to watch it. Grade: B-
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)